Amrat Dhounsi against the New Zealand Herald

The New Zealand Herald published an article on September 14, 2025, titled Indian national Amrat Pal Singh Dhounsi to be deported after indecent assault conviction.

The article outlines how Indian national Amrat Dhounsi, who has spent his whole adult life in New Zealand and who has a New Zealand-born son, is to be deported after being convicted of indecent assault. 

The story reported an Immigration and Protection Tribunal ruling which found that while there were exceptional humanitarian circumstances in favour of the man being allowed to stay - including his relationship with his primary school-age son, his residence was not a right, the offending had a profound impact on his victim and that deportation was not unduly harsh in this case.

Mr Dhounsi said he was shocked and distressed to see that he was named in the article. He was also concerned that it would cause his son mental distress and traumatise his elderly parents who were unaware of his situation. He said he did not know that his full name would be printed in the news and was worried that someone would publish his photo without his consent.

The NZ Herald responded that article was based on a publicly available ruling in which his name had been disclosed. The decision was made in June, and deportation was delayed to give him time to put his affairs in order. This included preparing his son and making other arrangements for ongoing communications with him.

As difficult as it might be for him, the story was an accurate reflection of the ruling and had been reported in what it believed to be the public interest.

The Media Council accepts the points made by the NZ Herald. This story was a straightforward report of a tribunal ruling and comments made by the judge who considered the matter.  Mr Dhounsi’s naming goes with his criminal conviction, as does the effect of publication on his family.

Although the report was upsetting for Mr Dhounsi there were no grounds for complaint that the NZ Herald breached any Media Council Principles.

Decision:  No grounds to proceed.